NorthSideSox72

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Nov 24, 2008 -> 03:51 PM) But a majority of Americans voted for the most liberal Senator in Congress to lead us. So yeah, we. Not true, that was a GOP rally cry. He's pretty liberal, but there are others further left. And yet others in the House.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Nov 24, 2008 -> 03:47 PM) Actually, the Democrats have ran a lot of fairly conservative Democrats in the past couple elections to get their big majority in the Senate. The only really crazy liberal to run was Franken, and a lot of Obama voters in Minn didn't even punch the ticket for him. I blame the Lizard People.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 24, 2008 -> 03:39 PM) Great point. Obama didn't win this because of the hard left. Exactly. The far left was going to vote for him anyway, and will again in 2012. His ability to pull in moderates was his key. And you can't govern from the far left anyway. Bush tried to govern from the far right, and he showed how disastrous that can be as well.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Nov 24, 2008 -> 03:28 PM) If he manages to accomplish those things while navigating the clusterf*** of a minefield he's inheriting, that will be a successful first term and and easy landslide re-election. None of those things are easy. I think Iraq will happen pretty easily - they want us out now anyway. Energy is tough, but I think its very doable to make notable progress in a few years. Health care is going to be by far the toughest of those, IMO.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Nov 24, 2008 -> 03:18 PM) And I want to see his pledge fulfilled to completely ween us off foreign oil within 10 years, get us incredibly close to universal health care, and pull out of Iraq. You'll see significant progress towards full alternative energy use, but not enough in 8 or 10 years to be fully off foreign oil. You'll see us leave Iraq (fully or almost fully) within Obama's first term. Funny thing though, same thing would have been true with McCain in office. You'll see major changes to health care, though maybe not as complete as billed. Those are my predictions.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 24, 2008 -> 03:00 PM) I am pretty sure that the Gate 5 stuff has to be be coming out of the ISTA money, or out of the US Celluar endorsement money. There are very specific rules about park improvements and how those can be funded. I don't believe that gate money goes to that stuff, unless something recently changed. Its ISA money, that was mentioned in the thread on this topic (Gate 5).

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 24, 2008 -> 03:15 PM) Like I said, I just want to make sure there is an actual couple of voices from the left in there to actually piss off the moderates. Well, I am already sure there will be no lack of that. Obama himself is quite liberal, and Biden is fairly liberal as well. All the more reason for the cabinet to tend towards Obama's right. I like it.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Nov 24, 2008 -> 03:14 PM) Well that's my problem with this. America didn't resoundingly elect a Democratic executive and legislative branch to make incremental change. We want sweeping change. Good luck with all that. You're going to get change - we've already seen that. And in a modern context, I think it will be pretty darn big change. But there is no way that we will get the sort of sweeping, change all things change that the far left wants and the far right keeps predicting. Not going to happen, never was either.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Nov 24, 2008 -> 03:08 PM) The people have spoken. We elected a liberal president. The most liberal person in history if you ask some of the conservatives on this site. And we also elected a majority of liberals in Congress. That's why liberals are annoyed that the president-elect is creating what appears to be a not-so progressive looking cabinet. He's doing exactly what he said he'd do - build a team of thinkers from various viewpoints. He's said before, many times, he's a fan of the Team of Rivals concept. For now, that means that certain far-left Liberals will b**** and moan about having a moderate cabinet, and certain far-right conservatives will bemoan the most-liberal-President-ever stuff. Once the dust settles, if he has pissed off the extremists and made the moderates in each party happy, then I think he's probably done a great job.

I still think Isaacson is the best sports writer in town. I hope she sticks around, and I'd like to see her stuff more often than we currently do.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 24, 2008 -> 01:50 PM) It's probably also worth noting here that the economists out there who have been closer to correct on these messes than the folks running the government seem to Hate the Citi deal, because it looks an awful lot like a blank check for which the taxpayer gets very little. Its less of one than some of the more recent examples.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 24, 2008 -> 11:15 AM) Whether you realize it or not, you just gave the entire reason for why we have to break these banks up and why they can never even come close to approaching this size again. In general, I agree.

QUOTE (YASNY @ Nov 24, 2008 -> 11:56 AM) So, just how much did the Dow drop while Obama was introducing his new economic team? 130-140 points? That was interesting, to say the least. Classic buy the rumor, sell the news. When Obama info about his team "leaked" on Friday, it ran 400 points. He announced, and it fell 150.

QUOTE (IowaSoxFan @ Nov 24, 2008 -> 09:35 AM) No thanks, I think Getz could probably equal the .237 AVG and .296 OBP that Crosby put up. He is not even worth McDougal. I'd take him for MacDougal.

We got our first season ticket bill in the mail. The total price for our package went up a LOT - 11% to be exact. Yikes. I'm curious if people in other sections saw similar increases.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 24, 2008 -> 08:25 AM) So does the government ever plan on selling these shares back in the future? Or are we moving towards more permanent government influence over these institutions? Well that is one of the big questions. Treasury says it will sell them back at later dates. but, I do not believe they are forced to within any set timeline. And of course the sell-to-close of those preferred shares, if done in any kind of bulk, will move the markets.

QUOTE (YASNY @ Nov 24, 2008 -> 08:09 AM) Pull your head out of the sand. Yes, I'm that jaded. I also know I happen to be right. Consider the fact that most presidents in US history have had royal blood coursing through their veins, that just says that nothing has really changed over the centuries. Serfdom is alive and well. I know I won't sway you on this. I just wanted to present the other side, which I find more believeable. That these two fellows wanted to make sure that their Presidency had a quick transition away from the current nightmare administration, both for their own good politically AND so that the country could move forward. And that whole royal blood argument is kind of silly to me, as pretty much everyone on earth (certainly in the first world) has some royal bloodlines in their history. And I could care less what someone's great-great uncle twice-removed did anyway. Most things are not black and white. Yes, there are things going on behind the scenes that we are not privy to. No, there isn't some grand conspiracy to control all things. Conspiracies become geometrically harder to maintain the more people are involved. If all the leading men and women of the country over history have been part of this supposed conspiracy, you are talking about tens or hundreds of thousands of people over time. You might as well try to hold back the tide with toothpicks. And in fact, what appeared to be a continuation of a trend towards American royalty (Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton) was stopped in this election cycle. I think if anything, that is provocative evidence that fortunes at that level still have much to chance.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 24, 2008 -> 08:09 AM) Exactly. And yet they haven't. And of course they are ignored by this particular statistical analysis to paint one side of the picture. No question that Silver has a port list. His statistical stuff is fascinating, though. His predictions for the election and the primaries were pretty damn impressive.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 24, 2008 -> 08:05 AM) Well there we go... Citibank was going to fail, the Feds had to step in and stop it. Sure. Chances of C failing were increasing, C couldn't be allowed to truly fail, so they stepped in. Shouldn't really be a surprise to anyone. Also saw today in the WSJ that the money is coming with some stricter rules than previous chunks - rules about dividends, payback rates and periods, executive compensation, asset protection thresholds, etc. I do want to say again, all these chunks of money had better be followed up by a rehaul of the regulations and laws, and the agencies that enforce them.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 24, 2008 -> 07:22 AM) Now how does that factor in the counties where Frankin gained 100 votes while Coleman gained none? If we are using a purely stats argument as Silver would, then those sorts of chance occurances - accidental mistaken number transposition and the line - in theory, that should help neither candidate (or both equally). In theory.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Nov 24, 2008 -> 12:08 AM) It's funny, the government doesn't seem to bat an eye at propping up massive banks that made really bad choices these days. But automakers ask for less money than Citibank just got this weekend to keep over 300,000 blue collar workers in jobs, and its a hand-out too far. I know the argument is that if GM/Ford/Chrysler can't survive on its own, any bail-out is going to forestall an inevitable death. If that's true, wouldn't it also make sense to spend some money now to spread the shock and pain around over time so that we don't suffer a 4% drop in GDP immediately with relatively little to absorb it? As important as the auto industry is to the economy, it pales in comparison to the financial community. The financial system, the banks of all kinds, have to come first. Without the efficient movement of money through the financial system, no other industry matters. They are just not remotely comparable.

QUOTE (YASNY @ Nov 23, 2008 -> 11:03 PM) Another prime example that you really don't have a choice. They are all peas from the same pod. I knew someone would somehow find a way to make this a bad thing. Are we all that jaded? Once in a while, here and there, are examples of politicians doing something positive. This to me is clearly one of those situations. They were helping themselves, and the transition of whomever would become President. I cannot see how that is possibly a bad thing.

QUOTE (Heads22 @ Nov 23, 2008 -> 02:20 PM) Hunting and dog fighting are not even close. Agree. If one hunts a deer, assuming they aren't some sicko, they kill it as quickly as possible. And they use or sell or donate the meat, fur, etc., if they are worth their salt. That is being a carnivore, as most humans are. Torturing animals for sport is sick and wrong.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Nov 21, 2008 -> 03:34 PM) Looks like Richardson will be the Commerce Secretary. That would be a good choice. He did a good job bringing in a lot of new businesses and jobs to New Mexico, and pushed for balanced budgets. His foreign policy experience should help as well. As for the NM Gov job, temporarily, the Lt Gov takes over. I don't think that job is up for election for another year or two.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 21, 2008 -> 03:01 PM) If you do, stick with an actual credit card brand gift card ( IE Visa or Mastercard etc) vs a storebrand. If you go with a store, go with somewhere you know will be around, like a Target or Wal-Mart. Unless Visa or Mastercard go under. But I haven't heard any news of that happening.